Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the 'record' action, failing to disclose that repeated calls will create duplicate entries (non-idempotent).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and target. There is no redundant or vague wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a create-like tool, the description is minimally adequate: the schema covers parameters and the annotations cover safety. However, it omits the non-idempotent behavior and doesn't clarify whether it always creates a new record or could update an existing one, leaving a gap for correct selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all five parameters described. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already carries the meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Record' and names the resource ('job application in the candidate's Civify Kanban tracker board'). This clearly states what the tool does and functionally differentiates it from siblings like civify_list_applications, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no contextual guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as civify_list_applications, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool's name and schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.